105 A. 622 | Conn. | 1919
Upon the hearing before the Commissioner two controlling inquires were presented, upon both of which the defendants contended for a *315 negative reply, to wit: (1) Did the deceased, in succumbing to a heat or sunstroke, suffer a personal injury within the meaning of our Workmen's Compensation Act; and (2) if so, did that injury arise out of his employment?
Before us, defendants' counsel abandoned their contention as to the first of these inquiries, and conceded that under our recent decision in Ahern v. Spier,ante, p. 151,
Their second claim, that the injury did not arise out of his employment, which the court below sustained, was, however, strenuously pursued. The principles applicable in determining whether or not an employee's injury is to be regarded as arising out of his employment, were fully discussed and declared in Larke v.Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co.,
The Commissioner's finding in the present case is that the deceased's exposure was far greater than that of the community generally, and the risk from heat and the effects of the sun substantially greater than that of the community. Applying the prescribed test to these facts as found, the right of the claimant to receive an award of compensation is established, if the finding is to stand.
The reasons why it should not stand are not apparent to us. Conditions indicative of the deceased's special exposure to risk from the effects of the sun and heat are not, to be sure, as pronounced as they were in the case of the heat victim in Ahern v. Spier, ante, p. 151,
There is error, the judgment of the court setting aside the Commissioner's award is set aside and the cause remanded for the rendition of a judgment affirming the award of the Commissioner.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.